(30-12-2013 08:18 PM)BryanS Wrote: For a fair amount of our history, humanity assumed that the earth was the center of the universe because the sun and sky appeared to us as though it moved around us. In reality, of course, the earth rotates about its axis to create the illusion of the sun and celestial bodies orbiting the Earth. Our perception was an illusion that we could only overcome through more careful study and inspection.

I think the heliocentric model is only a more convenient way of modelling the solar system. There is nothing wrong about the assumption that earth is the centre of the universe, after all, we do observe the universe from earth. The reason the heliocentric model is preferred is that it gives the formulation and calculations are neater and it explains several astronomical phenomena that can't be explained by the Ptolemaic model.

Besides, the "celestial sphere" has a lot of uses in navigation, even in modern days when a GPS device and/or compass is not available.

So my point is that some our perception is *not* an illusion, any new theory must explain our earlier observations and should be *consistent* with the old theories in situations where old theories give reasonably good explanations and predictions.

Are you retarded or have you recently had a psychotic break? I ask because I may have been to harsh to the last person with that situation to blow through. If the answer to both of those questions is no then just STFU you are speaking nonsense and defending a disproven model.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(13-01-2014 10:32 AM)womendezuguo Wrote: I think the heliocentric model is only a more convenient way of modelling the solar system. There is nothing wrong about the assumption that earth is the centre of the universe, after all, we do observe the universe from earth. The reason the heliocentric model is preferred is that it gives the formulation and calculations are neater and it explains several astronomical phenomena that can't be explained by the Ptolemaic model.

Besides, the "celestial sphere" has a lot of uses in navigation, even in modern days when a GPS device and/or compass is not available.

So my point is that some our perception is *not* an illusion, any new theory must explain our earlier observations and should be *consistent* with the old theories in situations where old theories give reasonably good explanations and predictions.

Are you retarded or have you recently had a psychotic break? I ask because I may have been to harsh to the last person with that situation to blow through. If the answer to both of those questions is no then just STFU you are speaking nonsense and defending a disproven model.

I'm sorry that you seem upset, but my intention was definitely not to defend the Ptolemaic model. Classical mechanics has been proven wrong by experiment, but we still use Newton's laws of motion in fluid mechanics. For an average amateur astronomer, when trying to locate a certain star or constellation in the sky, there is no compelling reason to imagine the universe in anything other than the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't mean that that it is "right", or more precise and comprehensive than our current understanding.

I do agree with you that "We cannot know for sure whether the universe exists", but not because "we are not able to differentiate illusion from reality". I recently read Carnap's "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology", in which he wrote about the distinction between "external question" and "internal question". Basically, he said that the question of whether "the universe exists" cannot be answered because we are asking about the external existence of so called linguistic framework of "the world of things". Since external questions don't have any "cognitive content" or "clear cognitive interpretation", we can think of them as "pseudo-question".

Premise 1: Every thing that exists has an explanation for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The universe has an explanation for its existence.

Premise 1: May be deceptively misworded.
Technically "Every thing that exists IN THE UNIVERSE has an explanation for its existence." We don't know anything about "the whole set = universe" only "parts within the set."

We may know that parts of the universe all have explanations but that does NOT necessarily automatically mean the whole universe has an explanation.
(= fallacy of composition + non sequitur) Bertrand's Russell's answer to Fr. Copleston on the contingency argument.

eg
1.All humans have a father & Mother (parts within a set = true)
2.All Humans belong to the human species = true
conclusion:
3.Therefore human species has a father & mother.(entire set) = incoherent
Also = non sequitur + fallacy of composition.

= faulty premise.

Second premise may also be faulty.Premise 2: The universe exists.
This comes from Kant and existence not being a "real" predicate.
"existence" here is being reified (reification fallacy) as if it is " a thing" and the universe is a thing (i.e the universe is a thing which is "in" another thing called existence)

"Existence" (in its totality) is not an "additional property" with attributes - it is not "an additional part" of a set i.e there are "two things - existence & the universe"

What if "The universe *IS" existence" ? i.e the word existence is just a equivocation for the universe. In other words "the universe is all the totality of all that exists"
Therefore Premise 2 has major problems.

This is tricky with the wording but "existence" is not a "container" (to use an analogy) which has a universe fitting inside it & therefore needs explaining.
If all that exists *IS* the universe (the sum total of everything) then there is no need for explanation for the entire set - only parts within the set need explaining.

It doesn't even make sense to ask what is the explanation for the entire set (existence/universe) because explanations themselves ARE parts of existence/the universe !!!!!!!!!

Even in principle: if you could explain the entire set - you have not explained it !) = explaining the totality of existence becomes self refuting !!!

i.e what explains explanation ? = get an infinite regress.
Of course arbitrarily sticking God at the end as "explanation" just creates desperate confusion to fill in gaps and cannot explain anything.

Much more going on here than just circular reasoning !

ALso my above response is not dogmatic about what exists or the exact nature of the universe. It would work if All existence was the universe which was ultimately some quantum flux, energy, space-time or even mental or multiverse or whatever the ultimate building blocks. i.e it is a logical argument I am presenting not based on the latest cosmology - it would work for all cosmologies.

(17-01-2014 11:19 AM)womendezuguo Wrote: I'm sorry that you seem upset, but my intention was definitely not to defend the Ptolemaic model. Classical mechanics has been proven wrong by experiment, but we still use Newton's laws of motion in fluid mechanics. For an average amateur astronomer, when trying to locate a certain star or constellation in the sky, there is no compelling reason to imagine the universe in anything other than the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't mean that that it is "right", or more precise and comprehensive than our current understanding.

I like to think that the Earth is flat like this:

And I agree with this guy's sentiment:

I used to think it was more like this:

But it occurred to me that the beast that holds up the flat Earth would get tired. Sure now I can't explain earthquakes as easily as I could but that animal would need to sleep and eat. What would it eat and how the fuck can it sleep with a fucking flat Earth on its back?

If you were writing the argument in the OP as a scientific paper you wouldn't use the word 'explanation'. It requires an implicit assumption that 'explanation' means that something can be explained. That would require multiple intelligent agents with the means to measure accurately and communicate (e.g. humans).

It may not be possible to determine, and consequently explain how the universe was created because we are inside the universe itself.

It may be that to measure at the smallest scale required to truly understand quantum mechanics would take more energy than we can ever have available.

The argument should really be:

Premise 1: Every thing that exists has a cause for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause for its existence.

Either way, this argument is a Russell's teapot argument. It is not falsifiable and therefore the burden of proof lays on the person making such a case.

(18-01-2014 04:22 AM)Mathilda Wrote: If you were writing the argument in the OP as a scientific paper you wouldn't use the word 'explanation'. It requires an implicit assumption that 'explanation' means that something can be explained. That would require multiple intelligent agents with the means to measure accurately and communicate (e.g. humans).

It may not be possible to determine, and consequently explain how the universe was created because we are inside the universe itself.

It may be that to measure at the smallest scale required to truly understand quantum mechanics would take more energy than we can ever have available.

The argument should really be:

Premise 1: Every thing that exists has a cause for its existence.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause for its existence.

Either way, this argument is a Russell's teapot argument. It is not falsifiable and therefore the burden of proof lays on the person making such a case.

The refutation for the kalam (your argument above) is not Russels tea pot but what I mentioned in thread above (based also on Russell & others)

"Causes" presuppose time which is part of the process of the universe.
therefore premise 1:
"Every thing that exists has a cause for its existence." makes no sense "outside a universe" (its not "wrong" - it literally makes no sense like a square-circle)
Its should be:Premise 1 Every thing that exists in the universe has a cause for its existence.

Of course when the premise is worded this way the Kalam argument collapses.
Not a teapot argument but exposing fallacies of composition, non sequitur, false analogy and failed induction inference. (cannot infer from within a universe to outside - the very concepts inside/outside come from a universe of space-time)

(17-01-2014 11:19 AM)womendezuguo Wrote: I'm sorry that you seem upset, but my intention was definitely not to defend the Ptolemaic model. Classical mechanics has been proven wrong by experiment, but we still use Newton's laws of motion in fluid mechanics. For an average amateur astronomer, when trying to locate a certain star or constellation in the sky, there is no compelling reason to imagine the universe in anything other than the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't mean that that it is "right", or more precise and comprehensive than our current understanding.

Not true. When I need precision, I use an accurate model.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(17-01-2014 11:19 AM)womendezuguo Wrote: I'm sorry that you seem upset, but my intention was definitely not to defend the Ptolemaic model. Classical mechanics has been proven wrong by experiment, but we still use Newton's laws of motion in fluid mechanics. For an average amateur astronomer, when trying to locate a certain star or constellation in the sky, there is no compelling reason to imagine the universe in anything other than the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't mean that that it is "right", or more precise and comprehensive than our current understanding.

I like to think that the Earth is flat like this:

And I agree with this guy's sentiment:

I used to think it was more like this:

But it occurred to me that the beast that holds up the flat Earth would get tired. Sure now I can't explain earthquakes as easily as I could but that animal would need to sleep and eat. What would it eat and how the fuck can it sleep with a fucking flat Earth on its back?

You are obviously making a bad analogy.
I was merely suggesting that since we are observing the universe from a planet called earth, it is possible and sometimes even plausible to set the frame of reference on earth and imagine all stars and planets on a gigantic "celestial sphere".

Of course in astronomical calculations we clearly see that Newton's Laws (or the theory of relativity when precision is needed) and a heliocentric model are much easier to work, and more importantly these theories provide valuable insights about the universe.

Also, is it the case that people not voraciously defending established scientific theory in this forum are automatically considered idiots? I don't have a degree in physics, but I did go to high school.